As ordered by the court, Google has submitted a new and longer list of bloggers and other commentators who have written about its ongoing patent litigation with Oracle, even as it continues to insist that it has never paid anyone to report or comment on the case.
On Monday, Judge William Alsup gave the online ad giant five …

Surprised?

Anyone who thinks that there is anything surprising about Google having paid influence peddlers is clinically deluded.

Let's see how long it take for the people constantly denigrating Florian Mueller, to explain why and how it is possible to accept Google's shilling and still be honest, while accepting money for Oracle unfailingly imparts corruption. Since I am sure that these people have long ago developed any number of strategies for dealing with cognitive dissonance, their rationalizations could be very enlightening... from an "clinical psychology" point of view..

G00gle Vermin

Shaping the future via McCarthyism

My opinion is that Oracle is betrothed to Microsoft and Apple and as such is also another enemy of technology innovation. Open source makes fine and dandy good press, but god help those who make a financial success of it.

Google's big big mistake was not 'being thankful' and just plodding on serving the two incumbents.

Re: Shaping the future via McCarthyism -LMFTFY

Why skip Maskick's Oracle link?

In the same article Masnick reveals a stronger link to Oracle, and wonders why he didn't appear on their list too:

"Separately, because all of this struck me as interesting, I remembered that we did some work with Oracle too! And, just as with what we did with CCIA, it was disclosed publicly at the time. Oracle (along with Intel) sponsored a section of our site, and a series of webinars that we did. And yet, Oracle did not disclose me in their original filing and I don't believe that they filed a new filing here either. Of course, as with CCIA, our relationship with Oracle did not include them having any say in editorial either. In fact, with the order as broad as it was from Judge Alsup, I'd argue that there's a much stronger argument that I should be in the Oracle filing than the Google one. But, of course, Oracle didn't include us because it was a random blog sponsorship thing they did a while back which had nothing to do with editorial (or even intellectual property issues). "

But when did they stop beating their wives?

Why was I not included on the list ?

I have made numerous posts against Oracle here and elsewhere, I use Googles services for search Docs etc plus have made a few quid over time finding real bargains via shopping or miss prices and buying stuff to fleabay.

Re: Why was I not included on the list ?

I was going to say the same thing. Any google user who has made any comment about the case should be named.

If using www.google.com for search saves money, then I'm sure Larry Ellison should be on Google's list as well.. (along with 80% of the internet users. I hope the Judge has additional filing cabinet space)

List is incomplete

LMGTFY

"As ordered by the court, Google has submitted a new and longer list of bloggers and other commentators who have written about its ongoing patent litigation with Oracle..."

The above quote is actually subtly hilarious. If Google has no relationship with those writing about the patent spat, then they (Google) must have simply Googled the list. That's funny by itself. I hope that they highlighted this claim. They should have spent hours crafting the perfect search term string, and then simply provided the court with a LMGTFY (Let Me Google That For You) link. It would be utterly hilarious, and well worth the 30-day Contempt of Court sentence.

Oracle Bridge Burning Services Inc.

Surely the very fact that anyone even remotely linked with Google is now being named a "shill" at the behest of Oracle will be enough to guarantee that their writings in the future *will* be biased, if not towards Google, then at least against Oracle?!

Fairness?

I note the author of this article is very careful to ignore the fact that Oracle DID actually pay someone to shill for them, and has NOT been asked to submit a list of all those who shilled for it on their own time. Wonder why?